Betsomnia Casino Review

The player from Germany had requested a self-exclusion from Wizebets, Jacktop, and their partnered casinos due to a gambling addiction. However, the player was still able to deposit €170 into Betsomnia. The request for a refund from Betsomnia had gone unanswered. The player had argued that she had requested a self-exclusion from all partnered casinos under the same license, which was ignored. We had explained to the player that unless a self-exclusion request had been made directly to Betsomnia, she wouldn't have been entitled to a refund. Despite her dissatisfaction, we had to close the complaint due to the stated reasons.

The player from the Netherlands had won 3,500€ and had initiated withdrawals for 1,500€ and 2,000€. However, the casino had unexpectedly zeroed the player's account, citing a technical error, and allegedly further violations of terms. The player had denied violations and believed the explanations provided were false claims. The complaint had been escalated to the Complaints Team, who had contacted the casino for further clarification. The casino had acknowledged a system error that had affected the player's account and other accounts. The casino had committed to rectify the error by returning the funds to the player's balance and assigning a new VIP manager to the player. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds, resolving the complaint.

The player from Germany closed her account at Betsomnia after losing €5000. However, she was persuaded to reopen it by a VIP manager and lost another €5000. She now wants her account to be permanently closed and prevent any further contact, as well as a refund from her last deposits.

The player from the Netherlands had repeatedly requested to close their account at Betsomnia. Despite numerous requests and losses totaling to 16k, the casino had repeatedly attempted to incentivize further play rather than closing the account. The player had provided all requested information to the Complaints Team. However, the Complaints Team noted that the player's requests were directed to the VIP manager and did not specify a reason for account closure. Despite extending the response period, the player did not respond further. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response from the player, halting any further investigation or potential solutions.

The player from Brazil had made a withdrawal using SKRILL from Betsomnia Casino and was charged a fee of 43EUR, which he claimed had not been clearly stated during the withdrawal process or in the terms and conditions. He had contacted the casino and was told that the fee was for the payment method, not the casino. The player disagreed and threatened to open a complaint with gaming curacao. The casino maintained that the fee had been charged by the payment provider, not the casino. The player had also contacted SKRILL, who confirmed that the recipient is not charged fees. We had requested additional information from both the player and the casino to investigate further. However, due to the player's non-response, we were unable to continue the investigation and had to reject the complaint. The casino suggested that the fee might have been for currency conversion, but the player insisted that there was no currency exchange involved.

The player from Austria had experienced problems with the verification process in Betsomnia casino despite having submitted all the required documents repeatedly, which had prevented him from withdrawing his $5000 winnings. The issue had started on February 10, 2024, and the casino had insisted on him providing a bank statement for the final verification step. After a month, the player had managed to verify his account and received his payout. However, due to the complex verification process, the player had decided not to play at this casino anymore. The complaint had been resolved successfully.

The player from Netherlands, who had self-identified as a gambling addict, had lost about €10,000 in two days at the casino without any interventions. The player had accused the casino of neglecting its legal duty of care, questioned the game's random outcomes, and claimed it operated without a Dutch license. The player was seeking a full reimbursement. After we reviewed the case, we found that the player had not made any deposits after his self-exclusion request. We also clarified that we could not assist with complaints related to licensing regulations and suggested the player contact the licensing authority directly. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction but continued to lose money as his account was not blocked and no reply had come to his email. He demanded a refund of his deposits. He had provided evidence of his self-exclusion request and insisted that the casino had overlooked his request. Later, the player confirmed that he had received the refund, and we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from France was facing a problem with the casino payment method, 'cash2code', which had disappeared after a 25E deposit. The player was consequently unable to use the purchased code. We had advised her to contact her payment provider for a thorough investigation, and recommended that she refrain from making further deposits until the issue was resolved. However, due to the lack of response from the player to our messages and inquiries, we were unable to proceed with further investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was therefore rejected, but the player retained the option to reopen it at any time.

The player from the Netherlands had experienced issues with multiple pending deposits at Betsomnia Casino. Despite having reached out to the casino multiple times, she had received no resolution. After she submitted her complaint with us, the casino had begun to address her issue. The player had been required to provide several documents, including her ID and bank statement. The casino had found the missing deposits and had informed the player that they would credit her account soon. However, the credited amount was less than expected and had appeared as a bonus, which she couldn't withdraw. The player then expressed her dissatisfaction with the casino. Eventually, the issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction, and the casino had provided an explanation for the error, stating that it had been due to incorrect bonus settings, which they had since corrected. The complaint had then been marked as 'resolved'.